A Tale of Two Studies

Kansas officials played a shell game with government reports they used to support a statewide tobacco ban.

In arguing that the state’s 2010 Kansas Indoor Clean Air smoking ban hasn’t hurt business, officials and activists pointed to Kansas Department of Revenue data that showed no decline in revenues.

There’s just one thing wrong with that KDOR data: it’s irrelevant.

The ban’s supporters point to KDOR data about “drinking establishments,” a category used by KDOR’s Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. That report combines sales revenues from a range of establishments, including high-profit full-service restaurants that limited smoking before the ban as well as drinking places such as bars where smoking is more common.

KDOR has consistently pointed to that combined ABC report to bolster its contention that the ban had no impact on year-over-year revenues.

Now, KansasWatchdog has discovered that KDOR manages another report, data that may support bar owners’ contention that the smoking ban is bad for their business.

The data, segregated by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) numbers, shows up on U.S. Census Department and Bureau of Labor Standards sites.

KansasWatchdog has discovered anomalies in the NAICS data on drinking places and has submitted the report for independent analysis.

In interviews and public testimony, state officials and anti-smoking activists have failed to present the OPR data, focusing instead on the ABC report. Duane Goossen, vice president for Fiscal and Health Policy at the non-profit Kansas Health Institute, cited the combined bar and restaurant data in his March 12 testimony before the House State & Federal Affairs committee.

Goossen served as budget director under three governors, Republican Bill Graves and Democrats Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson.

During his 28-year journalism career Soutar worked for the Associated Press, the Detroit Free Press, Detroit News and Knight Ridder Newspapers in Washington, D.C. From 1990 to 2008 he worked for the Wichita Eagle as a photo and graphics editor, producing special sections and writing stories on various subjects. He has received numerous international, national and regional journalism and design awards. Before his journalism career Soutar served in the U.S. Navy photographing and writing about events in the Western Pacific and Indian oceans.

Anomalies? Heh, you’re being rather polite in that description I’d guess. I analysed a very similar study done by Elizabeth Klein et al in Minnesota a couple of years ago. They played exactly the same game: taking separate data sets for bars and restaurants and combining them, and then put out a study declaring “Smoking bans do NOT hurt bar and restaurant employment!”

The trick lies in how they used the word “and.” Most folks, particularly after hearing/seeing introductory comments about how the study was meant to address concerns about ban effects on drinking establishments or bars would assume that “and” was used to mean no harm in EITHER restaurants or bars. In reality however, the statement only held true, barely, if the two were combined. The much larger restaurant employment figures, which included hundreds or even thousands of restaurants that had banned smoking on their own before the ban, hid the actual absolute DECIMATION of employment in the bar industry.

Could other factors have been in play in Minnesota: quite possibly: bar employment numbers had been falling for several years before their ban. But the Klein study itself did seem to play a trick quite similar to what Paul Soutar seems to have uncovered: it’s not an anomaly… it’s the standard way antismoking research is done nowadays in order to fulfill grant proposal applications promising ban-favorable results.

Michael J. McFadden

Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Billy

Now just who in their right minds would trust the words or data collected or utilized by organizations that are dependent upon the results to facilitate their own livelihoods such as the multi billion dollar anti smoking cartel?

Sheila

KDOR employees, one or more, have been misrepresenting these numbers since prior to the city smoking ban election in Emporia and the City Council passing of the ban in Salina. KDOR employees, one or more, took the ’09 liquor revenue numbers for three monthes in ’09, prior to the ban, and took the entire set of numbers and put them onto the ’11 report. When this was accidentally discovered, the numbers were changed, and the KDOR said it was “just a mistake”. Three monthes from one year put into another years report is a curious “anomaly”, eh?

Also, I was informed several times by one or more KDOR employees that there was NO WAY they had to differentiate Red Lobsters from a neighborhood bar. I was told to look at the records and pick out the different places myself.

It’s rather looking like Kansas tax paid employees in the KDOR, KDHE, KHPA, and other departments are paid lobbying arms of pro ban. This is NOT what they are paid to do.

http://www.antibrains.com Michael J. McFadden

Sheila, you should have pity for those poor Antismokers. They have a bit of a problem above the shoulders and mistakes like that are only to be expected. True, they make a lot of them (heh, just last month they counted the same California children three times in order to come out with statement that “2.1 California Children Are Plagued By Secondhand Smoke” and only corrected it several days later after someone pointed out that the numbers didn’t work, and then there was that whole huge “meta-analysis” two years ago screaming to the media about how heart attacks in ban areas went down 17% — only to run a very quiet technical correction a month later that it was really only 8%.<and then never DID mention that heart attacks went down even MORE in areas withOUT the bans! LOL! ) but I'm sure it's all just random accident….

I also believe in fairies!

MJM

Pam

Great job, Paul!!! Your radio interview was also great; well articulated and factual! Here’s how they skewed the numbers in Ohio. This is a complaint sent to Governor Kasich:

I am writing to file a formal complaint against Director Wymyslo of the Ohio Department of Health and researcher Elizabeth Klein, hired by the Ohio Department of Health at $125 per hour to conduct an Economic Impact of the SmokeFree Workplace Act on Bars and Restaurants.

On September 2, 2011, the Ohio Department of Health released Analysis of the Impact of the Smoke-free Workplace Act , held a press conference and issued a press release . The press release stated: According to researcher Elizabeth Klein, PhD, with The Ohio State University College of Public Health, the law has not had an impact on either type of business. “After accounting for unemployment and seasons of the year, the analysis found that the Smoke‐Free Workplace Act did not have an economic effect on restaurants and bars in the state as a whole,” she said. The Dispatch reported “Reviews of restaurant and bar sales between 2003 and 2010 showed a drop immediately after the ban was put in place, but business quickly bounced back.” How “quickly” did business bounce back? Who reimbursed these losses?

Governor, please bear with me as I outline the flaws in Ms. Klein’s study.

Ms. Klein is not an economist. Her title with OSU is “Health Behavior and Health Promotion”, a title which clearly shows Ms. Klein is biased. She has received funding on other occasions for Tobacco Control studies. If the Ohio Department of Health wanted an economic study done, why didn’t they contract with someone from the Fisher College of Business; someone who has no bias in the outcome of this study?

“Drinking Places”, as defined by NAICS, primarily sell beer and liquor, not food. It took me 5 minutes to obtain costs from 2006 and 2011. Ms. Klein accounted for unemployment and seasons but did not factor in increased costs or increased number of businesses. Since 2006, the average wholesale costs rose:

• 6.05% per bottle of liquor, according to a public records request from the Ohio Department of Commerce.

• 17.95% for bottled beer

• 26.27% for a keg of beer

• The number of drinking places increased 11.82% from 2006 to 2011. Ms. Klein factored in nothing for the increased number of businesses.

Clearly, if the costs of what we sell increased, then bars either sold products at a loss (to produce no statistically significant change in sales taxes) or we increased prices and lost money! If the number of drinking places increased 11.82%, yet there was no change in sales taxes, wouldn’t that prove bars lost money?

Let’s look at it another way. Because everyone views this as a “tobacco” issue, when clearly it is not, let’s use this example. Let’s say the Ohio Dept. of Health decided that all restaurants much sell chicken that has not been fed hormones. Five years later, ODH hired a researcher with PETA to conduct an analysis on the economic impact on restaurants. Since Kentucky Fried Chicken’s main product is chicken, this researcher studies KFCs. In five years, KFC’s wholesale cost of chickens rose 20%. This PETA researcher finds that KFC’s sales taxes found no statistically significant change so she issues a report that restaurants that serve chicken aren’t impacted by ODH’s law on no hormones. This PETA researcher also neglected to note that in 2006 there were only 2,300 KFCs in Ohio. In 2011, there were 2,576 KFCs, a 12% increase. This infuriates the Regional Manager for KFC and he tries to get this report reviewed and corrected. He tries to no avail to get the researcher and ODH to adjust the figures to account for a 20% increase in wholesale costs and that with 12% more KFCs, ODH reported (and now the media) that KFCs are doing fine with the five year old law. Now, Governor, if the cost of chickens increased 20% and yet sales taxes remained flat, don’t you agree that KFC lost money? If the combined sales taxes for all Ohio KFCs stayed the same yet there were now 276 more KFCs, weren’t the individual restaurants losing money? Oh, one more thing infuriated this KFC regional manager. Other states were considering a ban on hormones in chicken and they were citing this PETA researcher’s study in these other states because no one from Ohio did a darn thing about correcting this study.

Governor, I’m asking you to have this study fixed with a correction released to the same media that covered the “no loss to bars” debacle. Liz Klein’s study was just used this week in an Indiana story about the pressure on the Indiana legislature to pass a state-wide smoking ban. By the way, we’re considering moving our business to Indiana. You see, their legislature EXEMPTED BARS!

Please do not forward this letter to Director Wymyslo to respond to. This complaint is against him! And to pay a biased researcher $125 per hour to produce a report that backed Wymyslo’s desire for hormone-free chicken, I mean smoking bans in adult-only bars, is misuse of state money. Surely, Wymyslo knew Klein, being Health Behavior and Health Promotion, would arrive at the proper results.

On the questionable science, I’m sure you are aware of the Osteen decision on rhe 1992 EPA report. What you may not know is the fact that the subsequent Surgeon Generals Reports were written by many of the same activists including the Lead Author of the 2006 report. They actually admit to using the same questionable methodology on page 21.

Turns out that Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a huge grant maker to the Kansas Health Institute! And they say they are “neutral” on the smoking ban! I am DYING LAUGHING! And they are not anti smoking, they are pro ban. There is a big difference! Pro ban wants people to continue smoking, but they want people hounded into using the products that benefit RWJF, and then RWJF’s J&J stock will soar, and more grants will come aflowing down the pro ban river of money! If you ban selling tobacco, that will be the end of the pro ban nicotine replacement pushing! FOLLOW THE MONEY! And to our “neutral friends” in the KHI and other grant funded “non profits (sic) stop mixing restaurant numbers with bars. People are figuring out!

Well, if it isn’t some familiar tobacco industry supporters names appearing once again!

Knock yourselves out on contesting the following:

SMOKE-FREE LAWS DO NOT HARM BUSINESS AT RESTAURANTS AND BARS

In recent years a groundswell of support for smoke-free restaurant and bar laws has developed from states and localities across the country. As of December 2010, more than 60 percent of the U.S. population, or nearly 195 million people, live in areas that have passed strong smoke-free laws covering restaurants and bars – a figure that has nearly doubled in size in three years.

Smoke-free laws help protect restaurant and bar employees and patrons from the harms of secondhand smoke.

Smoke-free laws help the seven out of every ten smokers who want to quit smoking by providing them with public environments free from any pressure or temptation to smoke.

Accompanying the growth in smoke-free laws nationwide has been a parallel increase in false allegations that smoke-free laws will hurt local economies and businesses. In fact, numerous careful scientific and economic analyses show that smoke-free laws do not hurt restaurant and bar patronage, employment, sales, or profits. At worst, the laws have no effect at all, and they sometimes even produce slightly positive trends.

For example:

A 2010 analysis of economic outcomes of smoke-free laws stated, ―there is clear evidence that smokefree legislation does not hurt restaurant or bar businesses, and in some cases business may improve.

In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) examined the extensive literature on the economic impact of smoke-free policies on the hospitality sector. The analysis noted that methodologically sound research studies consistently conclude that smoke-free policies do not have an adverse economic impact on the business activity of restaurants, bars, or establishments catering to tourists, with many studies finding a small positive effect of these policies. These studies analyzed official reports of sales, employment and the number of restaurant and bar establishments.

A comprehensive examination of smoke-free laws published in 2007 concluded that, ―the vast majority of scientific evidence indicates that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies, with many studies finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses.

The Surgeon General’s 2006 Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke examined numerous studies from states and local communities across the country. The report concluded that, ―Evidence from peer-reviewed studies shows that smoke-free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry.

A study in the journal Tobacco Control (in 2003) offered a comprehensive review of all available studies on the economic impact of smoke-free workplace laws and concluded that: ―All of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact.

In addition to the comprehensive analyses listed above, the experience of many states and communities demonstrates that smoke-free laws protect health without harming business. Smoke-Free Laws Do Not Harm Business at Restaurants and Bars Data from ten Minnesota cities (published in 2010) found that local smoke-free laws had no negative impact on bar and restaurant revenue. This was true for total taxable sales as well as revenue from alcohol sales.

Another study found no significant changes in bar or restaurant employment (in both rural and urban regions of the state) after implementation of Minnesota’s statewide smoke-free law.

In 2008, the Washington State Department of Revenue noted that businesses posted strong gains in gross income in 2007. Bars and taverns, which the Department noted feared being hit hard by the smoke-free law, generated 20.3 percent more gross income in 2007, compared to a .3 percent gain in 2006, the first full year after the law went into effect in December 2005. Their average growth rate was stronger in the two years after the smoke-free law than in the years preceding the voter- approved ballot initiative.

A study published in 2007 assessed the economic impact of a smoke-free law in Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky. The study found that, ―No important economic harm stemmed from the smoke- free legislation over the period studied, despite the fact that Lexington is located in a tobacco- producing state with higher-than-average smoking rates.‖ An analysis of employment data found restaurant employment grew after the smoke-free law went into effect (employment remained unchanged in bars). A comparison of restaurant and bar openings and closings showed no significant difference before and after the law (regardless of whether or not the establishment served alcohol).

A July 2006 report on The Health and Economic Impact of New York’s Clean Indoor Air Act found that, ―the law has not had an adverse financial impact on bars and restaurants. The report examined sales tax receipts from 1999 to 2004 from a sample of vendors who had filed a tax return for each quarter. The analysis showed that,‖ the CIAA had no apparent effect on sales tax receipts for bars or full service restaurants or on totals from all retailers in New York City or New York State.

California was the first state to implement smoke-free restaurant (1995) and bar laws (1998). A 2005 study analyzed how the smoke-free laws affected the distribution of revenues between bars and restaurants. Critics of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws have often claimed that a law prohibiting smoking reduces restaurant and bar revenues. Using tax revenue data from 1990 to 2002, the study authors note that, ―our analysis suggests that the actual effect is just the opposite: the 1995 smoke- free restaurant law is associated with an increase in restaurant revenues, while the 1998 smoke-free bar law is associated with an increase in bar revenues.

A study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of School of Public Health of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ comprehensive statewide smoke-free law that took effect July 5, 2004 found that, ―Analyses of economic data prior to and following implementation of the law demonstrated that the Massachusetts state-wide law did not negatively affect statewide meals and alcoholic beverage excise tax collections. Furthermore, the number of employees in food services and drinking places and accommodation establishments, and keno sales were not affected by the law.

A study conducted by research economists at the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research found that the state’s voter-approved smoke-free law, which took effect July 1, 2003, has not hurt sales or employment in the hotel, restaurant and tourism industries (the Florida law exempts stand-alone bars). In addition to analyzing total sales, the study also examined restaurant revenue as a percentage of total retail revenue in order to account for underlying economic conditions in the state. The proportion of retail sales by Florida’s restaurants, lunchrooms, and catering services increased by 7.37 percent after the smoke-free law went into effect.

On March 30, 2003, New York City implemented its comprehensive smoke-free workplace law prohibiting smoking in all of the city’s restaurants and bars. A March 2004 report issued by the New York City Department of Finance, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Department of Small Business Services, and Economic Development Corporation noted, ―One year later, the data are clear. . . Since the law went into effect, business receipts for restaurants and bars have increased, employment has risen, virtually all establishments are complying with the law, and the number of new liquor licenses issued has increased—all signs that New York City bars and restaurants are prospering. The report noted that business tax receipts for restaurants and bars increased 8.7 percent from April 1, 2003, to January 31, 2004 compared to the same period in 2002-2003.

Smoke-Free Laws Do Not Harm Business at Restaurants and Bars

Employment in New York City restaurants and bars increased by 10,600 jobs (about 2,800 seasonally adjusted jobs) from the implementation of the smoke-free law in March 2003 to December 2003. The 2004 Zagat New York City Restaurant Survey provides additional evidence that New York City’s smoke-free law is not hurting business. The survey of nearly 30,000 New York restaurant-goers found that 23 percent of respondents said they are eating out more often because of the city’s smoke-free workplace law, while only four percent said they are eating out less. Zagat’s press release concludes, ―The city’s recent smoking ban, far from curbing restaurant traffic, has given it a major lift.

In Delaware, business remained steady one year after the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act went into effect in November 2002. Data from the Delaware Alcohol Beverage Control Commission show that the number of restaurant, tavern and taproom licenses increased in the year since the law took effect. Data from the Delaware Department of Labor show that employment in the state’s food service and drinking establishments also increased in the year since the smoke-free law went into effect.

A study released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that a comprehensive smoke-free policy in El Paso, Texas did not affect restaurant and bar revenue in the year after it took effect in January 2002. The CDC and the Texas Department of Health analysis found no statistically significant changes in overall restaurant and bar revenues, bar liquor sales, or restaurant and bar revenue as a percentage of total revenue. The latter finding refutes arguments often made by opponents of smoke-free laws that, even if bar and restaurant revenues grow after such laws take effect, they do not grow as fast as the rest of the economy.

Earlier studies of sales tax data from 81 localities in six states have consistently demonstrated that ordinances restricting smoking in restaurants had no effect on restaurant revenues.25

Studies of local smoke-free policies in Massachusetts (before the statewide law went into effect) showed no substantial impact on aggregate restaurant sales. In addition, the adoption of local smoke-free restaurant policies did not cause any statistically significant change in town taxable meal revenue.

Key Restaurant and Business Leaders Support Smoke-Free Laws

Members of the business community, including restaurant and bar owners, are becoming increasingly supportive of smoke-free laws, recognizing that these laws can have a positive impact on public health and the health of their business.

The 2008 Zagat Survey: America’s Top Restaurants of 132,000 Americans noted that, ―The verdict on smoking is overwhelming with 77% of diners saying they’d eat out less if smoking were permitted in local restaurants, and only 2% saying they’d dine out more.‖ 28 In 2009, the release of the Zagat Report remarked, ―In New Orleans and Las Vegas, two of the last major cities not to have banned smoking, this is still a major issue. Recent smoking bans will offer welcome relief to health-conscious diners.

In October 2010, Nicole Griffin, Executive Director of the Connecticut Restaurant Association remarked to WestportPatch Online that the smoking ban was a big issue for restaurateurs when it was implemented in October of 2003, but that today, ―[t]he smoking ban is not an issue at all for restaurants. She continues, ―When it first passed, restaurateurs were really nervous that once the ban was put into effect people wouldn’t come out to eat and drink, and that’s not what happened. Seven years later, customers are really happy to go out to bars and to eat and drink and not be in an atmosphere of smoke.

Michael O’Neal, former president of the New York State Restaurant Association: ―I feel strongly that it is pro-business and pro-health to eliminate smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants. Smoke-free workplace legislation does not hurt business . . . Smoking prohibitions in California, Utah, Vermont, Maryland and Maine as well as in hundreds of cities all over the country prove that smoke- free-workplace legislation is good for all businesses, including the restaurant business. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Even smokers prefer to breathe clean air.

Smoke-Free Laws Do Not Harm Business at Restaurants and Bars

A July 2006 editorial in Nation’s Restaurant News stated, ―The argument against smoking in public indeed has become more compelling, and this could be an appropriate time for operators and associations to reassess their positions on the issue.‖ The editorial noted that the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association (PRA), ―long an opponent of stricter smoking prohibitions – did an about-face and urged state lawmakers to ban smoking in all public workplaces, including restaurants, bars and casinos.

Support for New York’s law has grown even among bar and restaurant owners. James McBratney, President of the Staten Island Restaurant and Tavern Association, was quoted in the Feb. 6, 2005, issue of The New York Times saying ”I have to admit, I’ve seen no falloff in business in either establishment [restaurant or bar].” According to The Times, ―He went on to describe what he once considered unimaginable: Customers actually seem to like it, and so does he.

Across the country, state and local chapters of business associations like the Chamber of Commerce are endorsing smoke-free laws. Chambers of Commerce in a number of states and communities, including Kentucky, Washington, Utah, Anchorage (AK), Beaumont (TX), Philadelphia (PA) and Manchester (NH) all supported smoke-free laws. In January 2011, Kentucky Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Dave Adkisson joined state legislators and health advocacy groups to speak in favor of a statewide smoking policy. In a survey of Kentucky Chamber members, 86 percent of respondents said they favored a smoke-free policy for public buildings in Kentucky. ―Smoking is not only killing us in Kentucky, it’s bankrupting us,‖ Adkisson said at the Capitol. ―Business leaders have come to the conclusion that we have got to discourage smoking in this state. In announcing their position, Chris Williams, Vice President of the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, stated, ―Over the past two months, an overwhelming number of our members have told us that they support a statewide smoking ban and believe the Chamber should publicly support it as well. What you may find interesting is the fact that 75% of our restaurant owners who are Chamber members agreed with this school of thought.‖ Williams said that the Chamber of Commerce supported a statewide smoke- free law because, ―The health of our employees is important to us as business owners‖ and ―The economic health of the restaurant industry will not suffer from a smoking ban. See http://www.no- smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=538 for additional information on business leaders supporting smoke-free laws.

David E. Garth, President and CEO of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce in California: ―I must admit that, at the time the [San Luis Obispo smoke-free bar and restaurant] ordinance was presented, we were extremely wary of it. We feared that the ban on smoking would cost the community revenue, jobs, tax dollars, tourists and tourist-generated income. We ended up coming out in support of the ordinance, seeing it as a leap of faith that wouldn’t hurt businesses. Suffice it to say, our initial fears were unfounded and today, I’m pleased to report that the effects have been extremely positive.

A 2002 survey of California bar owners, managers, assistant managers and bartenders found overwhelming support for the state’s smoke-free bar law, with more than eight in ten bar managers and employees (83%) saying they think the smoke-free workplace law protects their health and the health of other bar employees, and 77 percent of bar managers and employees saying that complying with the law has been very or fairly easy.

Sheila

Smokefree has the propaganda DOWN! Cherry pick and mix bar numbers with restaurants. Call 200 people for your pro ban paid for poll and then announce that an entire state “wants a ban”, from those numbers. Quote Chamber of Commerce lobbyists, when little bars DON’T belong to Chambers of Commerce, big restaurants do!

You can wrap your pro ban, pharma funded crap in pink ribbon, and put a bow on it, and it is still pharma funded crap, produced by pharma grant funded grant sponges, to promote the use of the pharmas nicotine replacement products.

THe question is how many grant sponging mooches are there in the USA. Let’s see… they are in the Cancer Society, the Heart and Lung Associations, the Dental Society, the AMA, the Chamber of Commerce, the Restaurant Association, the HHS, the FDA, the EPA, the White House, the House, the Senate, … and then we have the direct campaign donations to our elected officials… $7,000 on the Fed level and $500 on the Kansas state level…Bethell, Crum, …..

And all to get people using the patches! The State is buying these worthless products and handing them out on Medicaid, and the State is paying the Cancer Society for running the Quitline contract, where, after you call, they tell you you NEED the patches, (you degenerate slimey smoker) to quit! So then the ACS gets more money, Robert Wood Johnson Foundations’ J&J stock portfolio goes up, (and they can send out more money to the moochers) and Johnson and Johnson are rolling in the dough!

A 2011 survey of Kansas small business owners report that 100% of their businesses are down between 25 and 80%. Small, locally owned businesses, who do not belong to the Chamber of Horrors, the Restaurant Association, nor do they have lobbyists!

If Kansas wants people to not smoke then BAN THE SELLING OF TOBACCO. This kissing butt of a drug company who has turned once respected charities into lobbying organizations for pharma, and the forcing of adult businesses to treat their lifetime customers like lepers is pure, unadulterated fraud. And the drug company who started this, and everyone of their “non profit” hired liars, should be prosecuted, and should be required to not only reimburse Kansas business folks for their losses, but they should also be required to reimburse the State for lying to them about the “success” of their patches and gums.

Read the above link. If you think this is going to stop with just the illegal lobbying by NON PROFITS over pain meds, you are mistaken. This is the exact same scenario that J&J used to get the second hand smoke hype started, for the purpose of getting legislation and to get their patches and gums paid for by government.

Smokefree. How much are YOU getting paid. Better report it. THe Senate Finanace Committee may be calling YOU!

Sheila

When a few liars (Paid liars) agree on something, it doesn’t make the lies true. Even if you have 5,000 liars lying their tails off, it doesn’t make the lies true. Good thing people who lie don’t get hit by lightning! The Capitol, in Topeka, would need a lightning rod on the head of every pro ban paid “charity” lobbyists who entered the building.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, Cancer Society, and other lobbying non profits, but not the ones who can READ!

Sheila

When the government starts dragging the non profits into court, for illegal lobbying, the KDHE will say that the CDC told them to say that, the Cancer Society will say that the Kansas Health INstitute told them to say that, then the KHI will say that the Kansas Health Foundation told them to say that. THen the KHF will say that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation told them to say that. And they will all look at each other and point the finger at the other guys! Repeating lies, without checking your facts, is lying. Sorry. Admit about all the money you guys have been getting and where from. It will make you feel better!

The Dept of Rev says that they can’t report that small businesses are not being hurt by the ban, as they cannot tell the difference between a Red Lobster and a Joe’s Tavern.

But these pro ban hacks say THEY know. How would they know? Who cares! They just make it up.

Marlene

Tobacco Control has killed socialization and damaged the psyche of entire populations. The elite Prohibitionists would subjugate the “peasantry” to a feudal system with social posturing and make-believe morality. They present ridiculous evidence to further an agenda and perpetuate a myth that the impact smokers have on the interactions of people is automatically detrimental and always negative. They overlook the fact that different cultures have lived side by side for centuries without consequence and caused untold damage as drug pushers for chemicals, yet use of a natural plant has become criminal. They aren’t afraid that too many smokers will harm others, they’re afraid that too many smokers would force their demise.

http://fightingback@homestead.com Thomas Laprade

The controversy of second hand smoke could be ended quickly by a simple act of legislation. Anyone presenting information represented as science or health reliant information, which is later found to be false or misleading, would be rewarded with a mandatory ten year jail sentence.

I can guarantee the bandwagon of smoker hatred would end overnight and the profiteers would be making deals in self preservation convicting each other. Similar to the last time their ilk rose to prominence and Doctors were hanged at Nuremberg. The laws of Autonomy created in the wake, are largely being minimized by the bigots and zealots of Public Healthism, they are laws we found at the expense of millions who died without them. No one has the right to make health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a lie, as we find in the “toxic effect of second hand smoke”.

Don’t miss our news

Get the latest on government waste, fraud, and abuse - directly in your inbox.